The Progressive Investorhttp://theprogressiveinvestor.org
Educating investors to regain control of their own moneyThu, 05 Sep 2019 19:12:21 +0000en-US
hourly
1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.2.3He Has Mental Problems: The Simple Explanation for Trump’s Hurricane Maphttp://theprogressiveinvestor.org/he-has-mental-problems-the-simple-explanation-for-trumps-hurricane-map/
http://theprogressiveinvestor.org/he-has-mental-problems-the-simple-explanation-for-trumps-hurricane-map/#respondThu, 05 Sep 2019 17:07:37 +0000http://theprogressiveinvestor.org/?p=8145 As usual, the media is falling all over itself to explain how Trump said Alabama was a possible target of Hurricane Dorian as it moved north- northwest skirting the country’s eastern seaboard. As this photo shows, Trump used a black magic marker to extend the hurricane’s path farther

As usual, the media is falling all over itself to explain how Trump said Alabama was a possible target of Hurricane Dorian as it moved north- northwest skirting the country’s eastern seaboard.

As this photo shows, Trump used a black magic marker to extend the hurricane’s path farther west and near the Gulf of Mexico to include the Alabama coast. Almost immediately, the National Weather Service, which employs real scientists, some of whom believe in climate change, contradicted Trump and said Alabama was never included in its original projections of where the hurricane would hit.

As he has in the past, Trump bumbled for an answer to his mistake and then compounded it by fabricating more lies.

That is the simple story.

The media, however, as it has since Trump was inaugurated, has failed to admit that Trump has mental problems. This would explain this whole event in simple terms. But mental problems are difficult to diagnose. And since he has paid-off doctors and former employees who cannot discuss his condition, legitimate mental health professionals cannot diagnose him unless they actually conduct face-to-face clinical sessions.

Still, the media is not bound by those medical ethics.

But the court of public opinion believes otherwise. The average American can see Trump is mentally deficient, but the media spends hours discussing:

What he said.

What he meant to say.

What they thought he said.

What they wished he would say.

What he said like this in the past.

What his inane statements may mean.

Why they think he said it.

How his inane statements fuel his “base.”

What the media never says is that Trump has mental problems.

He probably had these problems his entire adult life. But if the media said Trump has mental problems, it would cut hours per day from their programming model of speculation and endless discussions about the bullet points listed above. This would render the entire broadcasting model of CNBC and CNN obsolete.

If the media stopped covering Trump’s blatant examples of nonsensical and intentionally misleading public pronouncements, the nation would still know that Trump is bumbling around the White House with his unquestioning Republican entourage. That is old news, but it is replayed every hour as if it belonged on a legitimate news network. Even worse, the networks label many of Trump’s foolish statements as “Breaking News.”

Trump’s poor mental state has never been so visible by anyone else in public life. During the last years of his presidency, Woodrow Wilson had a stroke and his wife served as the intermediary between him and Congress. But there was no evidence Wilson was mentally impaired.

Since then, no president has been so visibly unbalanced, This created a major journalistic problem: Should the media respect the office, but disparage the president? Or, should it just pretend this is the “new normal”?

The media has still not decided on how to cover him. As a former reality show TV host, the media, including CNN chief Jeff Zucker, have admitted they used Trump like a cheap source to generate ratings. Trump’s rallies served as cheap productions to the networks since the rallies were paid for by American taxpayers, while simultaneously generating large profits for FOX, CNN, and MSNBC.

But, as we know, what is good for the media is not good for American voters and American democracy.

Time to Admit the Truth

The media must admit that Trump has mental problems. He also has been a sociopath his whole adult life. This is readily visible to any thinking American. It is why Trump has never worked for anyone else and why he would not be appointed to the board of any respectable corporation after he leaves the office.

He, his family, advisors and Republican fellow travelers all know this. This situation also explains the unprecedented amount of public graft and diverting public funds into his private companies. The Trump clan knows this is their last hurrah, so they are milking it every day for all it is worth, without any interference from Republicans, many of who are also on his larcenous bandwagon.

So whether it is a fantasy hurricane map or telling 2,000 lies, it all stems from the same man. The media should reconsider its news coverage model in light of this unprecedented situation. They have to realize the Commander-in-Chief is closer to Dr. Strangelove than Abe Lincoln.

Many of the political news shows on MSNBC and CNN would better serve the public if they showed reruns of the Three Stooges,Lassie or Sargeant Bilko, instead of repeating the same, tired news format that really does not contain much that is really new. I suspect the producers already know this and this explains why they overuse the “Breaking News” headline when they are repeating the news that is days old. At least with these old re-runs, Americans knew they were watching legitimate entertainment, not the low-class, criminal reality show that is now devastating our democracy.

]]>http://theprogressiveinvestor.org/he-has-mental-problems-the-simple-explanation-for-trumps-hurricane-map/feed/0Canadian Middle Class Has Higher Living Standard Than Americanshttp://theprogressiveinvestor.org/canadian-middle-class-has-higher-living-standards-than-americans/
http://theprogressiveinvestor.org/canadian-middle-class-has-higher-living-standards-than-americans/#respondTue, 03 Sep 2019 15:04:20 +0000http://theprogressiveinvestor.org/?p=8137Here is an old joke about Canadians: How do you tell the difference between a Canadian and an American? The Canadian has free health insurance and does not own a gun. Now, a recent article on Bloomberg says the difference between middle-class Canadians and Americans shows more differences between the

Now, a recent article on Bloomberg says the difference between middle-class Canadians and Americans shows more differences between the two groups of citizens. A study by the Luxembourg Income Study Database found the median income between Canadians and Americans has shifted. Projections from the study show that the median income of Canadians is now greater than middle-class Americans.

Another study, conducted by a Canadian government agency, found that incomes of Canadians are now greater in almost every percentile. As Bloomberg opinion commentator Justin Fox wrote: “A report released this summer by the Centre for the Study of Living Standards, an Ottawa nonprofit, contends that as of 2016 Canada had, in fact, pulled ahead of the U.S. in median household income, with a $59,438 to $58,849 advantage in U.S. dollars.”

Fox also notes that the currency conversion rate used by all the researchers introduces some margin for error. Still, Fox concludes: “I think most Americans who have visited Canada lately would attest that it feels like a more broadly affluent place than the U.S. does. That is, the claim that most Canadians are more prosperous than most Americans is not patently unreasonable.”

This is a big economic and political shift. It also shows that claims by elected Republicans that socialized health care in Canada, and other extensive social safety-net programs, are not detrimental to average Americans. Just the opposite. Nations with socialized health care, subsidized or free college tuition, family leaves for illnesses or pregnancies, and other social programs are not the radically disruptive forces Republicans and other conservatives claim.

As someone who just returned from a trip to eastern Canada, I agree with Fox. Without the benefit of access to hard economic data, Canadians seem more content with their lives, the cities are cleaner. I saw less homelessness in Quebec and Montreal, and staff workers and servers were efficient and polite. Canadians also were very patriotic, love all things Canadian, from hockey to maple syrup, and are not wasting tax dollars on endless foreign wars that benefit the military-industrial complex.

All this, of course, is anecdotal, but Americans vote based on anecdotal evidence. Progressives Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have all endorsed the benefits of the Canadian system, even as Republicans vilify and intentionally malign Canadian programs that benefit their own citizens.

This seems to be the point: Republicans oppose all social program that benefits average Americans. From gun control to free college tuition to socialized medicine, Republicans are the reactionary force we can count on to beat back all populist initiatives.

The 2020 election is the last chance to reverse this stranglehold on average Americans. The 2020 election is the last chance to beat back the corrupt system. If Trump wins again, Canada will become very attractive to a greater number of Americans.

]]>http://theprogressiveinvestor.org/canadian-middle-class-has-higher-living-standards-than-americans/feed/0When a Huge Firm Admits It Has No Solution for the Retirement Crisishttp://theprogressiveinvestor.org/8124-2/
http://theprogressiveinvestor.org/8124-2/#respondFri, 16 Aug 2019 15:16:20 +0000http://theprogressiveinvestor.org/?p=8124 In a short, but illustrative “thought leadership” report from Prudential, the $1.4 trillion in asset insurance and retirement planning firm, three major sources of financial stress were identified as affecting the future financial security of millions of retirees. The report, Preparing for Longevity: Overcoming Financial Wellness Challenges,

In a short, but illustrative “thought leadership” report from Prudential, the $1.4 trillion in asset insurance and retirement planning firm, three major sources of financial stress were identified as affecting the future financial security of millions of retirees.

The report, Preparing for Longevity: Overcoming Financial Wellness Challenges, is part of a series on “thought leadership” from Prudential Insights that provides “thought leadership that drives conversation.” This is a gross overstatement since none of the suggestions in this small report are new.

At first, the fact that there is nothing new in this report would be surprising since Prudential Financial is the nation’s largest insurance company, with total assets of $1.456 trillion. One would expect new information, or at least, some better suggestions from the experts for alleviating the nation’s acknowledge retirement crisis.

But this is not the case. Instead, Prudential cites some old, chronic causes about why millions of Americans will face financial insecurity after they stop working.

In the report, Prudential cites the following challenges that impair the ability of millions of Americans to retire. These factors are:

Saving for retirement. Prudential cites an old study from the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College found that if a worker wants to retire at age 62 while maintaining their current standard of living, and sustain their lifestyles, a 25-year-old now working needs to consistently save 15% of their income. The bad news is that most workers only save about half of that, despite employer 401k contributions.

Declines in homeownership. Millennials and Gen Z workers cannot afford a home, much of it due to student loan debt. Homeownership is a key to wealth creation.

Unequal wages between men and women. The report noted the importance of gender inequality in salaries and how it impacts retirement. In the article, Prudential found that “women are more likely than men to carry student loan debt (25% versus 18%). Women are also less likely to have saved for retirement (54% versus 61%) and, on average, have lower retirement savings ($115,000 versus $203,000).”

That’s it.

For a $1.4 trillion-dollar expert in retirement and financial services, Prudential is either intentionally blind to the realities affecting future retirees or just wants to avoid the real discussion affecting retirement.

My bet is both. The reason: the solution to the retirement crisis is political. It has nothing to do with asset allocation, boosting savings rates as wages stagnate or risk management. The real solutions are political and the huge financial firms pretend they don’t know how to solve it. In short, they are lying to their clients.

Hating Your Clients

Prudential spent $6,050,000 in 2018 and $8,130,000 in 2017 on lobbying. This sum made Prudential 73rd out of 4,273 corporations followed by the site, Open Secrets. Since Prudential is a rational corporation, we can assume that Prudential spent these huge sums spent on lobbying for passing or influencing rules, regulations or legislation at the state and federal levels to protect Prudential’s business operations worldwide. The money was also spent on supporting politicians and parties.

Prudential’s limp “thought leadership” paper shows many that this firm, and many others in the financial planning and retirement industry, are intellectually dishonest. They also are avoiding their fiduciary responsibilities to act in their clients’ best interests. This latest paper is just another part of the industry’s faddish emphasis on “financial wellness” programs that avoid addressing the real and attainable political solutions to the perpetual retirement crisis.

For the first time since the New Deal, some of the 2020 presidential election candidates have new ideas and viable programs that address the retirement crisis. Prudential and other firms in the industry see this, but predictably will fall back to their default position and say they do not engage in political discussions. If that is the case, why does Prudential spend so much on lobbying for legislation that disadvantages their own retirement clients?

Prudential is just one good example of the retirement industry’s intentional neglect of its clients. Papers on “thought leadership,” “financial wellness” and pushing target-date funds and mandatory 401k enrollments all benefit retirement service providers more than individual retirees.

Correcting the “Thought Leadership” Vacuum

But here’s a modest suggestion: the nation’s largest financial advisory and retirement firms can do some original analysis that would get national attention. They should publish reports on how “Medicare for All,” a fair regressive income tax, revenues generated from closing tax loopholes, and foregoing student loan debt will each financially affect their clients. These would be original examples of “thought leadership.” Such studies would advance political discussions about policies and programs that would put undoubtedly put more disposable income into their clients’ pockets.

However, if the corporate or marketing communications directors of these large firms want to protect their jobs and maintain the status quo, they should avoid the embarrassment of issuing “thought leadership papers” on the obvious.

It’s also time for financial planners and advisors who work in the retirement industry to acknowledge that their well-intentioned efforts are being derailed by their own employers.

Individuals savings for retirement should recognize that only a national political effort will prevent them from facing a lower standard of living in retirement or even worse, prevent them from retiring at all. The 2020 election is the last hope of finding the far-reaching national solutions to the chronic retirement crisis. Americans should realize the very real possibility that after a lifetime of work, they will descend the economic ladder and live on less than they have now. This is a bleak potential reality, but there are positive, real political solutions in the 2020 election that can change this. Push for your own secure financial future. It’s clear your financial advisory firm will not.

]]>http://theprogressiveinvestor.org/8124-2/feed/0It’s Time for That Painful Shanda Discussionhttp://theprogressiveinvestor.org/its-time-for-that-painful-shanda-discussion/
http://theprogressiveinvestor.org/its-time-for-that-painful-shanda-discussion/#respondWed, 14 Aug 2019 15:25:37 +0000http://theprogressiveinvestor.org/?p=8119 No other nation has treated the Jews better than the United States. In turn, Jews have also made major positive contributions to the nation. Jews have been good citizens and have a high percentage of voter participation than other Americans; 85% versus the national average of 52%, according

No other nation has treated the Jews better than the United States. In turn, Jews have also made major positive contributions to the nation. Jews have been good citizens and have a high percentage of voter participation than other Americans; 85% versus the national average of 52%, according to a 2018 analysis done by GBA Strategies and J Street. They have also been elected to political offices at all levels nationally.

Jews are also very visible in social, political and economic roles. This has focused attention on Jews and their public and private behaviors. When Jews make the news, it creates a ripple effect among some audiences that affect the opinions of the non-Jewish population.

So what happens when a person with a Jewish name violates a social norm or the law? And as importantly, how should the wider Jewish community react to this violation of laws or public norms and its effect on the community?

With this, we enter the world of the shanda. As the Chabbad web site says, the Yiddish word shand translates as “shame” in English. If a religious or educated Jew commits a Shanda, they may be to cited for “tzu shand” or “to shame.”

How shame is treated in the Jewish community is an ancient question with current applications. It is impossible to watch the news today without some mention of a Jewish figure who has broken a law, violated a norm or supported a person, policy or political party that other Jews vehemently oppose. This also makes it very difficult to write about this topic without using anyone’s name as an example of embarrassment. One reason is that in today’s contentious environment, a person who commits a Shanda could easily become another person’s hero.

The other reason is political or cultural sensitivity. While researching this article, no Yeshiva responded to my requests for comments on this topic. Only one rabbi responded and he said any discussion of it would only inflame anti-Semitism. This is a good observation, except that anti-Semitic acts already are at high levels, so maybe a discussion on the topic could be beneficial to the community.

But I took the rabbi’s comments to heart and worked to write an article about Jews who shame the community without including one name, pro or con, criminal or accused, regardless of political affiliation, in this article.

This is a challenge since we all have a list of Jews who have caused shame for the community. Listing these names could even become a new parlor game, but the sad reality is that there is no shortage of people to include on the list.

The Shanda problem is also complicated for a few reasons. First, some people provide financial support for a cause or party that enacts policies some consider unethical, immoral or violations of Jewish law. Second, these same offenders often justify their behavior when they say they are charitable or support a party that does bad things, but which also supports Israel. Does this excuse ameliorate the shanda?

A contemporary discussion on this topic also links us to our past. We know that Jewish culture and Hebrew laws have examined how individual acts create community shame and how these acts violate written law. We can start with the Talmud: “Three signs signify that a person has a Jewish essence: he is compassionate, ashamed of doing wrong, and seeks to do acts of kindness” (Talmud, Yevamot 79a).

Shame and being ashamed are so human, they are the first sins mentioned in the bible. “Adam and Eve felt healthy shame for disobeying G‑d’s commandment. After Cain killed Abel, Cain’s initial lack of shame was so problematic that he had to go through a long cleansing period to awaken him,” writes Miriam Adahan in her article “Shame and Emotional Turmoil” on The Jewish Woman.org.

This is an extreme example, but it makes the point. Most modern shandas are less violent, but are highly visible and in an era of social media, quickly become magnified and twisted.

Yet, while there are many commentaries on this topic, how should Jews react when one of their own violates the law or creates a situation that denigrates the larger community?

Repairing the Shanda Damage

Embarrassing the Jewish community creates problems inside and outside the community. In the words of Gene Weingarten of the Washington Post (May 17, 2011), “to be ‘a shanda for the goyim’ is to confirm the most hurtful stereotypes, thereby doing damage twice: a Jew who dishonors Jews by not only doing something bad, but doing something that confirms the worst fears of others about Jews in general.” Worse, this makes a shanda “a disgrace before the nations.”

This shame has two sources: internal and external. Jews are scrutinized more closely than other ethnic groups and like Hebrew National hot dogs, Jews are held to a higher standard. After all, Jews are the chosen people and are instructed to be a “light for the nations.” In this role, they are “representing Him and His will in the world. Transgressing the Torah or acting shamefully is bad enough, but to do so in public is a double Shanda,” according to Chabbad.

So, while we all have a list of people to include on the Shanda list, we should also focus on the opposite. Despite the obvious and hideous acts of abuse and crimes committed by some Jews, most Jews pursue goodness. This is behind the admonition Shiviti Ha-Shem le-negdi tamid – “I’ve ever measured myself against the Lord” (Psalms 16:8).

We can’t understand those who have failed miserably in their public or private lives or become criminals and caused embarrassment, but the vast majority of us can make a stronger effort to do more visible good deeds. This is a modest effort since significant damage has been done to the community. It is our job to repair it.

]]>http://theprogressiveinvestor.org/its-time-for-that-painful-shanda-discussion/feed/0Progressive Solutions Can Reduce American’s Financial Stresshttp://theprogressiveinvestor.org/progressive-solutions-can-reduce-americans-financial-stress/
http://theprogressiveinvestor.org/progressive-solutions-can-reduce-americans-financial-stress/#respondMon, 12 Aug 2019 16:23:32 +0000http://theprogressiveinvestor.org/?p=8115 A new survey by Cerulli Associates finds that workers are reporting they have major concerns about their financial futures. This report, sources of Financial Stress by Cerulli, says “a survey of 1,500 401(k) plan participants it conducted in the second quarter of this year (2019) found that

A new survey by Cerulli Associates finds that workers are reporting they have major concerns about their financial futures.

This report, sources of Financial Stress by Cerulli, says “a survey of 1,500 401(k) plan participants it conducted in the second quarter of this year (2019) found that participants under the age of 40 are markedly more concerned about student loan debt. Those between the ages of 30 and 49 are most stressed about saving for retirement, while those 50 and older are most focused on health care expenses. Those with less than $100,000 in investable assets are more likely to cite lack of emergency savings and credit card debt as a financial concern compared to their more affluent peers. Women say their top stressor is retirement savings, and men say it is health care expenses.”

But the real problem is that the financial services industry ignores the evident political solutions to all of these major problems. These problems can all be fixed by federal policies that address these issues. These issues can all be alleviated by the progressive candidates.

]]>http://theprogressiveinvestor.org/progressive-solutions-can-reduce-americans-financial-stress/feed/0History Tells Black Voters to Consider New Economic Alternativeshttp://theprogressiveinvestor.org/history-tells-black-voters-to-consider-new-economic-alternatives/
http://theprogressiveinvestor.org/history-tells-black-voters-to-consider-new-economic-alternatives/#respondSun, 11 Aug 2019 21:44:02 +0000http://theprogressiveinvestor.org/?p=8109 One of the key causes of racial inequality is economic inequality. To many people seeking to explain the racial inequality that has persisted since the Civil War, the economic argument is often intertwined with discrimination and the need to gain a more powerful political voice in government.

One of the key causes of racial inequality is economic inequality. To many people seeking to explain the racial inequality that has persisted since the Civil War, the economic argument is often intertwined with discrimination and the need to gain a more powerful political voice in government. These remain the prime variables to climb the ladder to racial equality in a capitalist society.

So, it should not come as a surprise to discover that some of the first Afro-American intellectuals recognized that economic power was also social power, which translated into political power.

As early as 1923, W.E.B. Du Bois cautioned other Afro-Americans to look ahead and adopt a more modern economic attitude towards work and wealth creation.

In an article in the Jewish daily Forverts newspaper on May 8, 1923, entitled “The Negro Race Looks To Jews For Sympathy and Understanding,” Du Bois, a professor of economics and history at Atlanta University from 1896 to 1910, said the path to political inclusion hinged on adopting new ways of economic thinking.

“The main problem of the Negro is not the struggle for a higher economic plane of living, but the racial discrimination and the struggle for a voice in the state,” he said. “Consequently, the Negro still thinks about work and wages in terms of the modern division of labor, in terms of the early Nineteenth Century. He has no time to think of the modern economic revolution, for he has no knowledge of socialism, socialization of industry, and the other solutions which we radicals put forward for the happiness of all.”

In this same interview, Du Bois addressed the real cause that perpetuates discrimination. “Here you have it in the naked shame, the technique of American race prejudice. It is idle to charge up lynching solely top ‘the poor white trash,’ the ignorant and the poor may lynch and discriminate but the really deep and basic race hatred in the United States is the matter of the educated and distinguished leaders of white civilization.

“They are the ones who are determined to keep black folk from developing talent and sharing in civilization. Not only do they not raise a hand to stop the discrimination, they even gently and politely in strict secrecy put their shoulders to the wheel and push it forward.” Du Bois said this in 1923.

MLK Identifies the Same Problem

In the last speech Dr. Martin Luther King gave in Memphis, he said Americans had to “question the capitalist economy” and then he called for “a revolution in values.”

As quoted in an article in The New Yorker by James Wood, “The Time of Your Life,” (May 20, 2019), King told a staff meeting of the Poor People’s Campaign in January 1968 that he “didn’t believe capitalism, as it was constructed, could meet the needs of poor people, and that what we might need to look at was a kind of socialism.”

“…the really deep and basic race hatred in the United States is the matter of the educated and distinguished leaders of white civilization.”–W.E.B. Du Bois

Knowing he was treading in dangerous waters, King then told the group that it that statement was repeated outside of the meeting, he would have to deny it. King studied the works of Karl Marx and once said his favorite philosopher was Frederick Hegel.

Since also King said capitalism has limitations. As a result, “we might need to look at was a kind of socialism.”

King never had the time to develop his version of socialism, but in the 51 years since King’s 1968 speech, the wealth gap has become severe. As analyzed by the French economist Thomas Piketty, inequality is built into the system. This is because when an economy has a rate of return on capital exceeding the growth rate, inherited wealth always grows faster than earned wealth.

The gap is confirmed by other articles in The New York Times, Forbes, and The Center for American Progress, which found that “In 2016, the median wealth for black and Hispanic families was $17,600 and $20,700, respectively, compared with white families’ median wealth of $171,000.”

The economic situation for blacks and Hispanics remains dismal, and an increasing number of whites remains dismal. One dire estimate from the Corporation for Enterprise Development and Institute for Policy Studies, found in a 2016 study that “if average Black family wealth continues to grow at the same pace it has over the past three decades, it would take Black families 228 years to amass the same amount of wealth White families [had in 2013]. That’s just 17 years shorter than the 245 years of slavery in this country. For the average Latino family, it would take 84 years to amass the same amount of wealth White families [had in 2013]—that’s the year 2097.”

In other words, if your ancestors did not make the money, chances are you won’t have much, if anything, to inherit. That seems to be the case today, 96 years after the Du Bois’ interview.

Obama Did Not Help the Situation

Another study by the National Asset Scorecard for Communities of Color found “Blacks with some college education have higher unemployment rates than whites who never finished high school.”

Worse, “at each level of education, the black rate of unemployment is twice as high as the white rate. Moreover, the relative economic position on virtually all indicators, including the racial unemployment rate gap, has not improved since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

In the article, How Barak Obama Failed Americans, by William Darity (Dec. 22, 2016, The Atlantic), the author makes the case that it took over 150 years of social and racial injustice to create today’s dramatic economic injustice gap.

But Obama, as Darity points out, did not start programs or develop legislation that would have the teeth to even begin to correct the entrenched wealth gap problem that exists between black and white workers, including the larger gap that separates black females from white females.

Citing research from a separate article by Ta-Nehisi Coates, Darity points out that:

“blacks with a college degree have an unemployment rate almost as high as white high school graduates;

“that completion of a college education leads blacks to carry twice the level of student loan debt than whites four years after the degree,

“that blacks experience a significantly higher default rate on their loans, that black households have one-seventh of the wealth of white households;

“that black families with $100,000 or more in income reside “in more disadvantaged neighborhoods than white families making less than $30,000.”

Today, there is still a need for Afro-Americans to consider whether other economic systems would reduce the economic opportunity gap.

Since the Civil War, the U.S. has perfected the model of capitalism, and even as it evolved into its highest stage, monopoly capitalism, business leaders, social policy thinkers, and elected officials have still not corrected its inherent conflicts and systematic abuses.

The 2020 election offers a historic opportunity to inject some new economic ideas into the system that would benefit millions of Americans who have been left behind, with little hope of ever catching up. New ideas beget new opportunities.

Maybe it’s time for the millions who have been left behind to focus on voting for a candidate who will present new economic ideas and new opportunities.

]]>http://theprogressiveinvestor.org/history-tells-black-voters-to-consider-new-economic-alternatives/feed/0Progressives Have the New Ideas in Tonight’s Dem Debatehttp://theprogressiveinvestor.org/progressives-in-tonights-dem-debate/
http://theprogressiveinvestor.org/progressives-in-tonights-dem-debate/#respondTue, 30 Jul 2019 15:47:55 +0000http://theprogressiveinvestor.org/?p=8105 This evening’s second Democrat presidential debate will feature the two leading progressive candidates against other more conservative contenders on a range of policy issues. But the progressives–Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren–have set the direction for the policies being addressed by the others, especially in the areas of

This evening’s second Democrat presidential debate will feature the two leading progressive candidates against other more conservative contenders on a range of policy issues.

But the progressives–Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren–have set the direction for the policies being addressed by the others, especially in the areas of health care (Medicare for All), voter suppression, trade agreements, individual investor protection, job creation, and addressing the violations of unregulated capitalism.

In one important area, Sanders and Warren will address their proposed plans to restrict a cynical and damaging form of finance called private equity. Both have specific plans to regulate this gross abuse of financial manipulation.

Private equity financing is modern capitalism on steroids. As described by the economist Matt Stoller in his exceptional and information newsletter (subscribe for free here), private equity in its simplest form is “a large unregulated pool of money run by financiers who use that money to invest in and/or buy companies and restructure them. They seek to recoup gains through dividend pay-outs or later sales of the companies to strategic acquirers or back to the public markets through initial public offerings.” The keyword here is “unregulated” and that helps explain why private equity is devoid of any ethical concerns. It is all about money..

Private equity came into practice as a variation of leveraged buy-outs. This practice put companies into debt by

Sen. Elizabeth Warren

loaning them money or issuing bonds and then forcing them to direct all of their business activities into paying back creditors. When the companies invariably failed to meet their debt obligations, companies, such as Toys R Us and Staples, went bankrupt, failed to pay severance and pensions to workers, and left huge holes in the marketplace. (A variation of this type of debt burden is also used by international financing authorities on entire countries to force them to privatize public services and then into becoming the equivalent of indentured servants to the lenders.)

The Toys R Us example is a template for what private equity firms do. Bain Capital (once managed by Republican Mitt Romney), KKR, and Vornado Realty Trust, bought Toys R Us in 2005, and then put the company heavily into debt. By 2007, Toys R Us was still very popular, but because of its debt, the company was spending 97% of its operating profit on debt service, Stoller said.

Looting corporations is what private equity firms do. One academic paper by Brian Ayash and Mahdi Rastad, and cited by Stoller, found that “companies bought by private equity are ten times more likely than comparable companies to go bankrupt.” This makes private equity predatory capitalism and it uses every financial, accounting and legal trick available, to extract the most money from a company without any regard for the public or creditors.

Dems Taking Private Equity Contributions

Private equity is bad business for average Americans. It kills companies, promotes monopoly markets, leaves former employees with no severance or pensions, and manipulates the markets for the benefit of a few greedy financiers. Simply, and based on their records, there is no other way to say this.

While that is the record of private equity, some Democrat running for president have taken contributions from private equity firms and will, as expected, talk and act favorably about them. That is expected when you take money from lobbyists. So consider these Democrats who took money from this corrupt industry in the second quarter of 2019, as cited by Stoller:

Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris all received donations from one or both of the leaders of the country’s top two private-equity firms, Blackstone and the Carlyle Group.

Buttigieg received the maximum donations from 11 high-level Blackstone employees, as well as money from Bain Capital and Neuberger Berman. Biden, Booker, and Gillibrand nabbed donations from employees at least three of the top 15 private-equity firms.

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren took nothing.

Better yet, both Warren and Sanders have public policies to regulate and rein in private equity firms, so they cannot continue to wreck the marketplace and create more favorable tax and legal loopholes.

So as you watch the second Democrat presidential debate tonight, decide whether the same old system that allowed private equity firms to abuse the marketplace should still have a role in damaging your future. Then, look at the candidates and see who took their money in exchange for future favors.

]]>http://theprogressiveinvestor.org/progressives-in-tonights-dem-debate/feed/0Trump’s Mental Health Again Questioned in Claim on Nuking 10 Million People in Afghanistanhttp://theprogressiveinvestor.org/trumps-mental-health-again-questioned-in-claim-on-nuking-10-million-people-in-afghanistan/
http://theprogressiveinvestor.org/trumps-mental-health-again-questioned-in-claim-on-nuking-10-million-people-in-afghanistan/#respondTue, 23 Jul 2019 17:05:03 +0000http://theprogressiveinvestor.org/?p=8099 President Trump’s wild claim that he could end the war in Afghanistan in one week, but that he did not want to kill 10 million people, is another disturbing statement from a man who many mental health professionals think has serious clinical problems. At a meeting with

President Trump’s wild claim that he could end the war in Afghanistan in one week, but that he did not want to kill 10 million people, is another disturbing statement from a man who many mental health professionals think has serious clinical problems.

Trump’s role model: Dr. Strangelove

At a meeting with the Prime Minister of Pakistan, a country that borders Afghanistan, Trump made this surprising statement:

“If we wanted to fight a war in Afghanistan and win it, I would win that war in a week,” he said before heading into a closed-door meeting with Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan. “I just don’t want to kill 10 million people. Does that make sense to you?”

“I have plans on Afghanistan that, if I wanted to win that war, Afghanistan would be wiped off the face of the earth,” Trump said. “It would be over literally in 10 days. I don’t want to go that route.”

As reported in the Military Times, Trump’s statement was received with shock. “Trump’s statement that his plan would annihilate one-third of the Afghan population raised concerns in national security circles, as the estimated death toll implied a threat of nuclear force,” the newspaper said.

In a Tweet, Barry McCaffrey, Four Star US Army General Retired, said “Troubling listening to Trump Oval Office news conference with Pakistani PM. He baldly states that we have analyzed and considered using nuclear weapons to kill millions of people in Afghanistan as a solution to the conflict. WHAT IS TRUMP THINKING?”

No One Knows What Trump Is Thinking

The problem is that Trump, who has told thousands of verifiable lies during his tenure in the White House, has cognitive problems, according to a group of psychological professionals and psychiatrists, based on reporting of Trump’s actions as documented in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s 448-page report.

“…this President is incapable of making sound, rational, reality-based decisions free of impulsivity, recklessness, paranoid and other demonstrably false beliefs,…”

In this very interesting report (released April 25, 2019), Mental Health Analysis of the Special Counsel’s Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, a group of five mental health professionals concluded that Trump has numerous symptoms of mental problems.

“1. Compromises incomprehension, or inability to take in critical information and advice;

“2. Faulty information processing, in the form of mendacity, rigidity, self-occupied notions of “fairness,” and poor memory;

“3. Interferences to sound decision making, including loss of impulse control, recklessness, and inability to consider consequences; and

“4. Proneness to placing himself and others in danger, including encouraging, recommending, or inciting violence on the part of his followers.”

The report found that Trump is a risk to the nation. “In summary, we believe that the preponderance of evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that this President is incapable of making sound, rational, reality-based decisions free of impulsivity, recklessness, paranoid and other demonstrably false beliefs, with most notably an absorption in self-interest that precludes the consideration of national interest.”

And in light of his wild statements about not wanting to kill 10 million people in Afghanistan, presumably by using atomic weapons, the report also was prescient in stating that “these characteristics not only affect the overall unfitness of this President; they also indicate a profound danger to national and international security in the nuclear age.”

Here is a video link to an earlier panel discussion about Trump’s disturbing mental health, why it is dangerous for the nation and the world, and inexplicably, why Republicans continue to protect Trump’s presidency.

]]>http://theprogressiveinvestor.org/when-a-policy-helps-average-people-the-elites-call-it-socialism/feed/0Black Voters Should Re-Examine Clinton’s Presidencyhttp://theprogressiveinvestor.org/black-voters-should-re-examine-clintons-presidency/
http://theprogressiveinvestor.org/black-voters-should-re-examine-clintons-presidency/#respondMon, 22 Jul 2019 16:11:14 +0000http://theprogressiveinvestor.org/?p=8085 One of the main criticisms of Afro-Americans voters’ support of progressive Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders is that he has criticized the Democrat Party. As a result, political analysts say this has reduced Afro-American voter enthusiasm for Sanders. While it is critical that Afro-Americans and other racial and

One of the main criticisms of Afro-Americans voters’ support of progressive Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders is that he has criticized the Democrat Party. As a result, political analysts say this has reduced Afro-American voter enthusiasm for Sanders.

While it is critical that Afro-Americans and other racial and ethnic groups vote for Democrats, the only party interested in advancing their economic and social interests, history shows that during the Clinton presidency (1993 to 2001), policies were enacted that directly hurt millions of Afro-Americans and other racial and working-class voters.

As a result, Sanders’ criticism of the Democrat Party makes valid points. This is why Afro-American voters should re-visit history and examine their skepticism of Sanders to see why Sanders opposed some policies that were accepted by many incumbent Democrats at the time.

Worse, many of Clinton’s policies in the areas of welfare reform and stricter prison sentencing guidelines were later accepted by the two-term administrations of Republican George W. Bush and Barack Obama. As a result, many policies promoted by both Democrats and Republicans worked against the interests of Afro-Americans and other working-class people. This is the basis for Sanders’ criticisms of the Democrat party.

When he was first elected, Bill Clinton was, and remains, very popular among Democrat voters. “Having grown up among black people in Arkansas, he seemed particularly comfortable around African Americans, leading the famed novelist Toni Morrison to dub him ‘the first black president,” according to Danny Sjursen writing in an article, “Bill Clinton: The ‘New Democrat,’” on the site, Truthdig.

“In time, she, and many of her fellow African Americans, undoubtedly came to regret those words as Clinton’s rather conservative, ‘New Democrat’ policies proved to be disastrous for most blacks in the United States,” he wrote.

But Clinton was definitely not a liberal or progressive Democrat. “He was a corporate Democrat, one who deftly convinced all parties in the waning Democratic coalition that he was “on their side,” while often selling them out soon afterward. This went for blacks, Hispanics, gays, union workers and the very poor. Clinton even spoke differently depending on his audience, managing, despite his inconsistent policies, to win the adoration of many of those he would abandon once in the White House,” Sjursen wrote.

In short, Bill Clinton was the first neoliberal president and advanced policies that benefitted Wall Street, big-money donors, and global trade agreements that benefitted corporations more than working families. In many cases, his policies survived during the Obama administration and look more like Trump’s today.

It is this deviation from the traditional Democratic Party platform of advancing pro-labor, pro-social safety net, pro-social justice policies that provide some of the basis for many of Sanders’ criticisms of the post-FDR Democratic Party.

Here is Bill Clinton’s record:

Clinton’s 1996 Welfare Reform

During the Clinton administration, the percentage of families receiving federal cash subsidies fell from 70% in 1996 to 23% in 2015. Clinton’s anti-welfare legislation continued an old trope pushed by many politicians about the “welfare queens” who took federal money without doing any work. This old prejudice existed before Bill Clinton and still persists today.

Bill Clinton’s welfare reform proposal was named the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.” The legislation cut Aid to Families with Dependent Children and capped lifetime limits on the amount of money recipients could receive to five years for any family. States would even impose shorter time limits. It also gave states the ability to re-direct block grants to use other uses and not make cash payments to families.

Today, one-third of states have imposed limits on these payments of less than five years (Kansas is two years, and Arizona is one year), and there have also been no cost-of-living adjustments since 1997, so payments have effectively been cut by about one-third.

Clinton’s welfare reform also extended to immigrants without full documentation. In these cases, Clinton’s policies cut off food stamps, federal disability protection for five years. After that, their situation was then left up to state governments. At the time, New York Senator Daniel P. Moynihan (D-NY), a former Harvard sociology professor, called Clinton’s legislation “an act of unprecedented social vindictiveness.” Moynihan had also been a critic of Aid to Families With Dependent Children, but his proposal was to attack to cause of the problem: joblessness.

Clinton’s Health Security Act of 1993

Health care reform has been attempted for decades, but its scope and operational details have eluded both parties. This Health Security Act was defeated by a Democratic-controlled Congress because it gave too much power to pharmaceutical corporations, insurance companies and hospital chains over prices.

Clinton’s Expansion of the Prison Population

During Clinton’s two terms as president, the U.S. prison population increased 60% from 1993 to 2001. The administration also deported more people in one year than any other administration in history (1.8 million people). The Clinton administration also made it easier to execute people when it expanded the number of federal offenses that could be subject to capital punishment, according to Jack Barnes in the book, The Clinton’s Anti-Working-Class Record, (PathfinderPress.)

Today, the U.S. has about 5% of the world’s population and holds about 25% of the world’s prison population, many of them being held in private, for-profit prisons. Of the U.S. prison population in 2017, federal and state prisons in the United States held about 475,900 inmates who were black and 436,500 who were white – a difference of 39,400, according to the Pew Research Center.

Clinton’s Anti-Gay Policies

Bill Clinton is known for his “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule that was an intentionally vague policy to allow gay men and women to remain in the military. But still, some 10,000 gays left the military. This was compounded by Clinton’s “final abandonment of gays, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law that allowed states not to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages and defined (from a federal perspective) the institution as a union between ‘one man and one woman,’” Sjursen wrote.

Sanders Was Correct: Clinton’s Policies Helped Republicans

Bill Clinton may have campaigned as a liberal Democrat, but as a politician, he knew where the money and the power resided and it was not with working-class and Afro-Americans. Clinton was a centrist Democrat, certainly never in line with FDR and the old liberal or progressive agenda.

In the early 1990s, the Democratic Party needed a new source of funding. Unions were in decline and corporate power was beginning its ascent that is only gaining power today. Clinton saw this and adopted more centrist and later, pro-Republican policies.

As Sjursen writes: “Clinton showed his true colors, which were centrist and even right-leaning. Indeed, it would be apparent, in hindsight, that the 42nd president was the first outright neoliberal chief executive, tacking right time and again and paving the way for the rise of neoconservative Republican power.”

Today, we are in a neoliberal political world. Corporations control all branches of government and still have a powerful hold over the Democratic National Committee, which is on an incessant hunt for large corporate or wealthy family donors. This is one reason why the DNC worked to derail the Sanders campaign in 2016 and why it still harbors that prejudice against progressive candidates today.

It is critical to vote straight Democrat in all national and local elections in 2020, but when Sanders criticizes the Democrat party for adopting positions that work against working-class people, he is on solid ground.